Architectural Board of Review

VILLAGE OF CHAGRIN FALLS ARCHITECTURAL BOARD OF REVIEW NOVEMBER 5, 2024 Meeting Called to Order 8:30 A.M. Members Present: Bill Childs, George Clemens, Mike Corcoran, Eric Kaminski, Steve King, Phil Koepf, Wendy Naylor Also Present: Dominic Cribari, Joan Andersen, Rob Jamieson APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by Naylor, seconded by Kaminski to approve the minutes of the October 15, 2024, meeting. Roll Call: King-abstain, Childs-abstain, Corkran-yea, Kaminski-yea, Naylor-yea. Motion passed. 1. Jacobson 468 Bell Street Exterior Alteration-Preliminary King read the Historical Significance Report and said that because the house is more than 100 years old the subject property meets the standards of a “Historically Significant Property.” It says that Codified Ordinance Section 1146.04 (d)(1-3): Proposed changes #1-5 have no adverse effect on the design and historical significance of the house as the proposed changes are to the non- historic deck and gazebo on the rear of the house; while one can see the rear elevation while walking north on Ridgewood Road, the proposed changes do not modify the overall massing or rhythm of the elevation. Motion by King, seconded by Naylor to receive the HSR report. Roll Call: Corkran-yea, Childs-yea, Kaminski-yea, Naylor-yea, King-yea. Joseph Linick (Architect) presented these plans. He said that they want to replace the existing screened-in porch and make it into a four-season room. He said they are matching the existing porch and only changing the screens to Marvin aluminum clad wood windows. He said they are reinstalling the gazebo. Corkran said that although this project does not need to have a site or topographic plan, he thinks that it should be submitted as part of a complete application. He feels that grading is important to the decision-making process and should be a part of the building application. The Board thought that was a good idea. Joseph asked what he needed for final approval and was told to have completed stamped drawings. Summation-motion by King, seconded by Childs for preliminary approval of plans as presented. Roll Call: Naylor-yea, Corkran-yea, Kaminski-yea, King-yea, Childs-yea. Motion passed 2. Huey 206 East Washington Exterior Alteration-Preliminary King read the Historical Significance Report and said that the proposed changes to the garage/barn would not have an adverse effect to the historical significance of the house. Motion by King, seconded by Naylor to receive the HSR report. Corkran-yea, Childs-yea, Kaminski-yea, King-yea, Naylor-yea. George Clemens (Architect) and Stephanie Mahon (Architect) presented these plans. George said that they are keeping the form of the garage but want to allow for two cars to park in it. They are trying to keep the existing form. Childs suggested changing the windows to a half sash with a shed dormer. George said he doesn’t want to eliminate that. George said that they could make the windows a little smaller. He said that they would like to change the siding since it’s in bad shape. Childs said to add a 2’ gutter. Koepf said to shrink the window a little and add a sub rake. Summation-motion by Naylor, seconded by King for preliminary approval of plans as presented with the following comments: Restudy of the gable end windows to reduce size: Restudy for greater projection on new portion: Need to show impact of grade change on site plan. Roll Call: Corkran- yea, Childs-yea, Kaminski-yea, Naylor-yea, King-yea. Motion passed. 3. Vinci 299 North Street Exterior Alteration-Preliminary Joshua Cunningham (Architect) and Joe Vinci (Homeowner) presented these plans. Koepf said that what he had expressed concerns about at the last meeting in addition to the architecture and detail. He said the plans are shown as a flat site and we don’t have an existing site plan or the changes. He said on this site is a 75’ lot. He said the sidewalks raise about 40” and slope from one side to the other side of the property. He said that the elevations are not right. Clemens said there should be a minimum contour every 2’ and the Board cannot make elevation decisions without everything. He is concerned about the elevation and curbs. Koepf said to pull the corner back-that the rendering doesn’t match. On the back elevation pull the windows together to balance the composition and to pull the columns back on the front porch. Kaminski said if we are going to look at everything including site plans at submission, they need to go through the current applications that have been submitted and reject them now. He said this way we are not wasting applicant’s time. Childs said to make sure they show how the water is getting out. Childs said to pull the columns back and make sure your drawings reflect the front elevation. Childs said to pull the back windows with the bay back and that the front shed roof pull in the windows and add mullions. Summation-motion by Naylor, seconded by King to table this discussion for the following reasons: Site plan to reflect existing conditions and proposed changes: Show water management: Pull shed roof in to match side elevation: Restudy driveway for functionality and rear elevation: Add mullions to windows. Roll Call: Childs-yea, Corkran-yea, Kaminski-abstain, Naylor-yea, King-yea. Motion passed. 4. Lopez 44 44 North Main Signage-Final Taylor Hannah (Sign Co.) presented these plans. She said that they are proposing a high-density urethane black and white sign. She said that the sign will be placed on the existing brackets. Summation-motion by King, seconded by Naylor to approve the sign as presented. Roll Call: Corkran-yea, Childs-yea, Kaminski-yea, King-yea, Naylor-yea. Motion passed. 5. Forstyk 174 Elm Court Field Change Becky Pantuso (Architect) and Steve Forstyk (Homeowner) presented these plans. Becky said that this is a field change for material. She said the original approval was in 2022 and that they want to change the material to a composite material. Summation-motion by Naylor, seconded by Kaminski for final approval of field change as presented. Roll Call: Childs-yea, Corkran-yea, King-yea, Kaminski-yea, Naylor-yea. Motion passed. 5. Le Bistrot 86 North Main Exterior Alteration-Preliminary Rick Siegfried (Architect) and Joe Cicconi (Owner) presented these plans. King read the Historical Significance Report and said that the structure is more than 100 years old the subject property meets the standards of a “Historically Significant Property”. Proposed changes #1-2 have no adverse effect on the design and historical significance of the structure. Change #1 The Stoneman Alley while it is listed as a contributing resource in the Triangle Park Commercial District Boundary Increase, has lost its historic integrity with recent modifications. Change #2 The addition of a storefront on the side (north) elevation was previously approved in a different configuration. King said that the alley has gone through a lot of changes and that Perspectus has found this not significant, but he said the final decision comes from the ABR Committee. King said that parking is not one of the ABR’s concerns. Rick said that the parking is not their purview but will discuss it. Corkran said that parking is not the Board’s purview because they are a part of zoning and parking is a zoning ordinance. Rick said they pushed the rear back 5’. He said the zero lot lines are something the Planning Commission has purview over and they pushed the building back in the front. He said that they have the appearance of a courtyard. He said the code says that the patio is permanent, not seasonal. Chief Financial Officer Rob Jamieson said that they are looking into the code. Rick said that they are adding the same number of seats that are currently there. Naylor said one of the comments she has about the HSR report is that Perspectus said that the structure is 100 years old and meets the standards but has lost its integrity. She said that our code has never gone to integrity. She said if its 100 years old regardless of its condition, it is historic. She said that this alley is a character defining feature of the Village. Rick said that it says that it is historic but what they are proposing will have no adverse effect. King said that they had comments about what has been approved and things are happening besides what has been approved. He said setting it back is not keeping it an alley and that the elevation of the four buildings has changed. Rick said that it says that there is a new alley created between Huntington. Naylor said that when you go back to the National Register it specifically talks about this alley and talks about being a feature typical of the urban environment of Chagrin Falls. She said the National Register recognizes this passageway and alley as a contributing resource to the National Register nomination. Corkran asked about the accesses to the businesses on the second floor and Joe said it is still being maintained. He said it’s a commercial access path for people to get to the second floor. Kaminski said he thinks that the patio was originally given approval as a temporary structure and now they want a permanent one. He asked if that is what they are looking into now. Chief Financial Officer Rob Jamieson said that the permanent patio is how the parking variance is treated. At the time it was proposed as an outdoor patio that is only used during the summer. The language says that it is not going to be removed and become a functional alley during the winter months. He said that the way the variance was granted was based on the parameters of what was proposed and how it applies to the actual building or structure there with the same number of seats. He said that the wording did not say seasonal in either the motion made by BZA or any of the minutes from Council. Rob said that at the time council had to confirm and approve all variances that were granted. He said that isn’t the case now. He said that that is what they are looking into now-how that applies to our evaluation of the parking. Rob said that they reduced the number of seats from 50 to 40 because that’s what the variance said so they retracted their plans for 50. Rob said he is looking into the exact microdetails of how the variance that was granted back then applies to what they are proposing now. Corkran said he understands the patio for the restaurant but there was also a second purpose for that space which is the walking access to get to the second floor. Joe said that the back entrance will still be maintained to get to the second floor. He said that by code you must have a fence for a liquor license. He said that the fence has been maintained on the front since it became a patio. Clemens asked if the whole building was not historic or just the restaurant and Kaminski said that the applicant is saying that the alleyway is not historic. Rick said that she says its historic, but the changes won’t have an adverse effect. King asked about the changes that have happened since what was already approved. Clemens said that they made it smaller and changed the elevations. Rick said that the side wall changed. Naylor said that the 86 N Main front elevation changes have been made with some modifications. The paneling below the windows was not installed and the new painted decorative trim and panel above the transom windows is a different configuration according to the HSR report . There are two lights on either side of the storefront. The fabric retractable awning has not been installed. The blade was not installed. Building and Zoning Inspector Dominic Cribari said that the applicant drawing show three large transoms on top and that on the original January plans they are showing six smaller ones. He said that it was another comment the HSR had. King said that the patio is still visually a patio without a structure. Rick asked when it became a rule that people to build on their property. The Board asked about the lot consolidation. Rob said that with or without the lot consolidation whenever a building abutting up to another building, he must review that code because there is some very specific language to that. He said there are some allowances for buildings in the zoning district because all the buildings in the Downtown district abut up against each other. He said they must look at the side site lines because there is a requirement for that if you are building a new standalone building. He said that there are other provisions in the code that relate to the lot lines and adjustments. He said that is something they are dealing with. Clemens asked if there are still 3 lots within the alley and Rob said yes. He said part of the requirement was for them to have standing long-term lease agreements that our Law Director approves and that they have been submitted and the only thing missing was one needed a signature. Clemens asked if the separation of the buildings is more about safety and fire issues and Rob said yes. Motion by Naylor, seconded by Kaminski to receive the HSR report. Roll Call: Childs-yea, Corkran- yea, King-yea, Naylor-yea, Kaminski-yea. Corkran said he doesn’t have a problem with a restaurant but if we have a code we need to comply with that code. He said that if there are complications like Rob is talking about, we work through those. Rick said that when something needs to go to the Planning Commission or the Board of Zoning Appeals, they like to get an interpretation from ABR about the design of the structure. Naylor said in this case she’s hesitant to decide on the property till I know that a building can even be built there. She said that if there is a section of the code that states that this building can’t go there, and she doesn't want to decide on a design to send along to the next board saying that we think it’s okay. Corkran said that the code says we can’t approve if it doesn’t meet zoning. Rob said that is a practice that does not need to be. He said that the code refers to Final Approval. He said the purpose of a preliminary approval is to look at that building. He said there could be unresolved zoning issues that you have concerns about and voice. You look at the building, it looks good however we don’t have an answer whether that should be approved because of the issue of zoning pertaining to parking, the side lot line. He said that the ABR does not have to make a determination, or a recommendation to BZA for that. He said that they can say does the structure or building architecturally are they headed in the right direction. He said all preliminary says are we headed in the right direction. Rob said that then BZA looks at the variances and any modification and if there is anything they specify P& Z looks at it. Once everything is resolved everything comes back to ABR with all the details of all the plans. ABR reviews the plans and makes sure everything all lines up for approval and that is when it is decided whether they can proceed or not. He said looking at this submission there are some unresolved issues things that they have identified preliminarily, the zoning issue. He said that there are some complexities that are unique to this project. Rob said if those are things that ABR would like to have identified prior to doing a preliminary, that is unique, but they would be happy to do that. He said that the purpose of this meeting is to look at the architecture, the fit of it, the historic nature of it. He said that there are some zoning issues that the Village needs to work through and are concerned about and they are not going to comment on it because they don’t know the answers yet. He said that they can say they are concerned about it and allow the BZA Board to do their job. Rob said that this is a practice on how the majority of ABR’s are done. He said the whole purpose is to navigate through the process and get the feedback whether they are headed in the right direction so that they can put it all together to get the final approval from ABR. Preliminary approval is not approval of the project. It just states you are headed in the right direction, and you need to make these changes so you can get final approval. Corkran said he doesn’t have a problem with that but if that’s the practice let's make sure the code states that. Rob said that they will look at it. Dominic said that part of the process is to get preliminary approval before going to BZA. King said that the structures involved are Historically Significant and personally he thinks it absolutely affects the property and is uncomfortable with the changes. Clemens said focusing on the architecture that what is happening below that first-floor placard sign has been subject to change on the street and what is shown is not a bad thing. He said he likes the direction of the design and is a move in the right direction. He thinks architecturally it's not a bad thing. Rick said that the other thing they would like to do is change the Sassy Cat Building back to a bakery. He said they want to improve the whole block. Childs said to develop the architecture of the structure. Rick said that if they make the changes, go to whichever board they need to go to then they come back here for final approval. Koepf said they need to look at the designs and the voting members think this is too far then there’s a process for that. He said that ABR was put ahead of the Zoning process so that they can make sure the designs are good. Joe said that restaurants draw people and that the Village has local owners running these restaurants. Naylor said that this Board’s purpose is maintaining the character of Downtown Chagrin. She said that they should put a motion together to table this with their comments so that the next board that looks at this will know where ABR stands. Corkran said that this is a permitted use of this facility. Childs asked if they add a roof and put an entablature, pilasters, and columns so that in the summer you could see through it and in the winter, you could drop it down, have heaters and get the best of both worlds. Kaminski said he would rather see glass instead of plastic. Joe said that no one has been happy with the plastic and what M Italian did was more of a permanent solution. Koepf said that architecturally what they are showing is a nice concept, there’s just other issues they need to look at. Summation-motion by Naylor, seconded by King to table this discussion for the following reasons: Architecture and the sense of geometry: Remove the Palladian windows: Restudy the skylight location: Need to further develop the design: Need to better relate to the vocabulary of Village historic architecture: Kaminski said he likes the rendering he was shown and would prefer glass over plastic: Glass is preferred over plastic drop sides: Alley is a historically significant character defining element of Downtown Chagrin Falls as a contributing resource to the Chagrin Falls Triangle Park National Register Historic District: A structure placed in the alley destroys this: ABR is requesting further discussion about this at the Council and P&Z level for further global discussion about the future of the historic character of Chagrin Falls. Corkran said he doesn’t think that belongs in this motion and as a council member he would be happy to raise this issue but does not belong in this motion for this project: Roll Call: Childs-yea, , Corkran-yea, Naylor-yea, King-yea, Kaminski-yea with comments that he is in favor of the renderings that have been provided. He thinks it fits with the new building and fits in between the two buildings, and he has no issues with the design Motion passed. Rick asked what their next step was, and Rob said that the Board has given you some feedback about the design. They’ve asked for the Village to complete their Zoning review to formalize that and get it back to them for further review. The next step would be to take the comments and feedback you’ve been given, revise your design accordingly as you see fit and make a resubmission for preliminary. The Village is going to do the Zoning review at the request of the ABR and get that back to them so they have that information, and they will know exactly how those issues will be handled through the code. Rob said he would write it up exactly that way in the letter that he will send to them and to ABR as soon as everything is completed. He said they would have that done in the next couple of days. Rick asked which meeting they would go to next, and Rob said to come back to ABR. Rob said that the Village needs to discuss this because in the past our practice has been (in the pecking order) BZA has requested preliminary approval architecturally before they evaluate the zoning issues. Rob said in his view it comes back to ABR-they want to know more details about variances and zoning issues are in play with this submission and they have asked for some changes architecturally to be evaluated and presented. In the past if a project did not receive ABR preliminary approval would not go to BZA until they worked out the architecture of the building and when it’s headed in the right direction then it goes to BZA for the variances. He said the variances are a more permanent nature. If there are still things to work out and have not been preliminarily approved its very dangerous to get a variance first because if it ends up, they are going to pull the wall back 5 ft. or move something 5 ft. then they might need another variance which delays the project again because the new plans require a new variance. Rick said in this situation they have two people who are saying no and Rob said that was something they would be looking at also. Corkran said that administration should look at things and tell applicants whether they are going to need a variance or not. Dominic and Rob said that is exactly what happens. Rick said that this project cannot be designed to not need a variance. 7. Jensen Travelon 26 South Main Signage-Final Jeff Allie (Sign Co.) presented these plans. He said that it was a vinyl sign on an aluminum bracket. The Board liked the sign. Summation-motion by King, seconded by Naylor to approve the sign as presented. Roll Call: Childs- yea, Corkran-yea, Kaminski-yea, King-yea, Naylor-yea. Motion Passed. Meeting Adjourned at 10:10 11-19-24 __________________________________ Steve King (Chairman) Date